Talk:Constitution of Portugal

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Portugal Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Expand / Cleanup

I think the 1976 section could be shorter and clearer. Also, most obviously, this lacks sections on all the older Constitutions, and expansion on the 1933 one. I might tackle it someday... but I'm far from being an expert. - Nabla 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need more on pre-1976 constitutions

We mention there were pre-1976 constitutions but we say nothing about them. Need to add if we can find referenced material. RJFJR (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The section Constitution of 1976 is tagged for neutrality, but nothing is written here about what neutrality is challenged. Please state what is disputed. RJFJR (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section was tagged in June 2011 by 112.135.68.14 (talk), who made no other edits. I would be surprised if we get an answer to your question anytime soon. Green Giant (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone else saw a problem. I've removed the tag. RJFJR (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source

I don't have the time to cite this properly, but I noticed that nearly all text on this page matches http://countrystudies.us/portugal/76.htm to the letter. That website claims the information is from the U.S. Library of Congress. Explodingdog (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Constitution of Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1975 or 1976

This article is in various categories for 1975, e.g. Category:1975 in law, but the article always calls it a 1976 constitution suggesting it should be in Category:1976 in law? Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the categories to match the year. It's probably just a result of the writer confusing the Carnation Revolution date with the constitution's date. CriMen1 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of 1933 + Constitution of 1976

I think it would be better if the Constitution of 1933 received its own Wikipedia page (it is the only now that doesn't have one) and the text that is currently in this page about 1933 should be reduced, as it includes a lot of historic political information that is beyond the point of the page (e.g., the three last sentences of the paragraph). This would also reduce some neutrality problems (e.g., describing people as puppets of Salazar sounds unnecessarily colorful). Also, is the constitution of 1933 bicameral or unicameral + advisory body? CriMen1 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1976 constitution's first paragraph is in general very confusing because of the way it uses the term "left". In the first time the term appears in the paragraph it is linked to the page Far-left politics, but then in the sentence "The membership was intensely partisan, with some 60 percent of the seats occupied by the left", clearly it cannot be referring only to far-left parties because, to reach >50%, it needs to include the Socialist Party (which, as far as I know, ruled as a minority government instead of forming a coalition with the far-left parties). One solution may by to bulldoze the whole section and replace it with new text based on quality sources, but if this does come from a credible source that considers the SP at the time to be far-left, then it would be good to clarify that in the text, as anyone familiar with modern-day Portuguese politics would be very confused by such classification. CriMen1 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]